Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentences (ten months of imprisonment, ten months of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, probation, and 80 hours of community service) against the Defendants of the prosecutor are deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We also examine the allegation of unfair sentencing on Defendant A and the prosecutor’s Defendant A.

Considering the fact that the crime of this case was obtained by acquiring a loan by pretending the collateral ability or the ability to repay, the crime of this case is not good in light of the method of crime, and the total amount of the defrauded amount is up to 135 million won, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, in light of the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment seems to be too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant agreed to pay the victim company KRW 10 million and to pay the remaining debt in installments; (b) the Defendant repaid the principal and interest of loans 63 times after the loan; and (c) the total amount of repayment exceeds 50% of the loan amount; (d) the Defendant is a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (e) the Defendant is against the Defendant’s mistake in depth and is making the repayment in good faith; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment; (e) the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e)

Therefore, the defendant's argument pointing this out is with merit, and the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Although the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method of the crime of this case and the amount of defraudation, etc. as to the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant B by the judgment prosecutor on the judgment of unjust sentencing, the defendant recognized and reflected the criminal facts, and the defendant repaid the principal and interest of household volume 63 times after the loan, and repaid the amount.